Charles Keating v. Robert Hood’s Empirical Analysis
191 F.3d 1053 · 1999
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently March 2011 · most notably Butler v. Curry (2008), Mancuso v. Olivarez (2002)
23 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Teague v. Lane · Burks v. United States · Neder v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he fundamental rule that applies when a jury delivers a general verdict that may rest either on a legally valid or legally invalid ground is clear: the verdict may not stand when there is no way to determine its basis.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“that the jury relied upon the legally correct theory, in this case, there is no way to tell which definition the jury relied on in reaching its decision, and it is far from”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]f any of the clauses[of the statute] in question is invalid under the Federal Constitution, the conviction cannot be upheld.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.